estimate_cost

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It lists the calculations performed (filament usage, material weight, filament cost, electricity cost, total), which is helpful, but it does not disclose any side effects, permissions required, or error behavior. It adds some context but lacks depth for a read-only analysis tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description begins with a clear purpose statement, followed by a usage note and parameter details. It uses line breaks and is well-structured. However, the parameter descriptions could be slightly more concise; they are repeated from the schema's defaults. Overall, it earns its space.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description explains the inputs and the general outputs (cost components). It does not detail return format or error handling, but it sufficiently covers what an agent needs to know to select and invoke the tool correctly, especially with the sibling differentiation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add value. It provides detailed explanations for all four parameters, including their purpose, defaults, and units (e.g., 'Cost per kWh in USD', 'Power consumption in watts'). This goes well beyond the schema's type/default information.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states that the tool estimates the cost of a print job from a G-code file, and explicitly distinguishes it from slice_and_estimate for STL/OBJ files. The verb 'estimate' and resource 'cost' are specific, and sibling differentiation is provided.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use (G-code files, already-sliced only) and when not to (STL/OBJ files, suggesting slice_and_estimate instead). This provides clear usage context and an alternative, fully meeting the criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.